The world premiere showing of the startling new Evolution vs God movie (produced by Ray Comfort/Living Waters) will be at the AiG Mega Conference, Monday night July 22! Ray Comfort (Living Waters ministry) will be present for this showing. My blog this morning will have all the relevant details. If you have not yet registered for the AiG Mega Conference to be held in Sevierville Tennessee (Pigeon Forge/Gatlinburg area) July 22-26--I urge you to do so. You can watch a trailer for this new movie at this link:

"NEW BLOG POST: Don’t Miss the World Premiere of the Startling Film Evolution vs. God at the Answers Mega Conference!

If you thought Ray Comfort’s 180 movie was a powerful message for the sanctity of life and the gospel, wait until you see his latest film offering. Evolution vs. God will rock the creation and evolution world!

I’ve previewed it, and I think everyone needs to see it—every adult and every young person. This movie helps reveal like never before how millions of students and others are being conned into believing evolution by “priests” of the evolutionary religion. Evolution vs. God will reveal just how bankrupt evolution is, plus show that students and professors alike can’t defend their faith in evolution when challenged with simple but profound questions.

Ray Comfort—as only he can do with his bold style and penetrating questions—goes on campus at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and University of Southern California (USC) and interviews professors and students. He also interviews students at Long Beach State University.

As Ray interviews evolutionary scientists, including well-known atheist PZ Myers, he asks a question that is something on the order of: “Is there scientific evidence—observable evidence—to support evolution?” Well, none of them could provide anything remotely scientific. Oh, they give the usual examples about changes in bacteria, different species of fish (like stickleback fish), and, as to be expected, Darwin’s finches. But as Ray points out over and over again in Evolution vs. God, the bacteria are still bacteria, the fish are still fish, and the finches are still finches! AiG has many web articles showing clearly that such changes are really the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution."

Good to see Ray ignoring the evidence as usual. I can't wait to see how he quotemines everyone for this.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Answers in Genesis to Host World Premiere of Movie that Exposes Evolution as Bogus Science

Ray Comfort, the film’s executive producer added, “We love the people at Answers in Genesis, and we asked them to review Evolution vs. God to make sure it was scientifically accurate. They loved it and only had a few minor suggestions. So having them host the world premiere is a great honor for us.”

Comfort added: “The movie is unique because we don’t interview any creationists. It shows that Darwinian evolution has no scientific basis, and it does so by going to the experts—to evolutionary scientists at UCLA and USC and holding their feet to the fire. If you believe in evolution, prepare to have your faith shaken.”

I encourage you to read the following press release about the new movie Evolution vs. God produced by Ray Comfort of the ministry Living Waters. AiG will host the world premiere of this movie at the AiG Mega Conference later this month near Knoxville, Tennessee.

Evolution vs. GodEvolutionists are certainly aware that this movie is coming out. I’ve seen a number of their blogs that make all sorts of claims about the movie in their attempts to discredit it (even though they haven’t seen it yet)—it’s their attempt at “damage control.” Regardless of how well-done this movie is, the evolutionists will claim they were taken out of context, creationists don’t understand that evolution is happening, and it just requires time, etc.

As they usually do, the evolutionists in the film appeal to observable changes in living things as proof that evolution is happening. But these changes do not add brand-new information into the genes that is necessary to even begin proposing a molecules-to-man evolution. The bottom line is that molecules-to-man evolution is a lie and there is no observational scientific evidence that confirms it. On the contrary, observational science confirms the account of origins as given in Genesis.

I believe Evolution vs. God will do a lot of “damage” in the minds of many in the general public who have been indoctrinated to believe evolution is fact—which is why evolutionists are already scrambling to try to do “damage control.”

One of the unique aspects of this new movie is that no creationists were interviewed!

It will be very eye-opening for young people who have been brainwashed by their teachers to believe that evolution is fact. But see what happens when university students and professors are asked to defend this claim!

I agreed to do a cable TV debate for the Salvation Army. But, I did get some choice in who I would appear with on the show. I said flat out that Ray Comfort (their first choice) was no-go.

We settled on one of their executive 'officers' who had an extencive backgrond in public education, and I was actually looking forward to the conversation. The day before the shoot, I got an email that the SA was exchanging their guy for Ray Comfort's pick.

I agreed to do a cable TV debate for the Salvation Army. But, I did get some choice in who I would appear with on the show. I said flat out that Ray Comfort (their first choice) was no-go.

We settled on one of their executive 'officers' who had an extencive backgrond in public education, and I was actually looking forward to the conversation. The day before the shoot, I got an email that the SA was exchanging their guy for Ray Comfort's pick.

Another claim he made was that when talking to Atheists he asked if they could make something like a rose out of nothing. Well, you can grow it from a seed was the standard reply but Ray then came back and said literally out of nothing.

Naturally, the Atheists flounder around unable to answer the question (according to comfort).

I honestly think some scientists who are Christians really need to have a go at comfort. In my opinion his understanding of both Christianity and science is way, way off.

My understanding is that the professors gave evidence, but none of it was 'directly observable' in a human lifetime or something like that, so Comfort is free to ignore it with the "you weren't there" argument.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

My understanding is that the professors gave evidence, but none of it was 'directly observable' in a human lifetime or something like that, so Comfort is free to ignore it with the "you weren't there" argument.

After the Dawkins fiasco in "from a frog to a prince" surely the likes of P.Z. Myers should have had more sense ?

Did no one think of asking Comfort to actually define a "KIND"

Given the quality of the camera-work in Comfort's recent cinematic magnum doofus, it's not clear that Comfort's victims were actually aware that the Bananaman was filming them. Recall that video cameras can be real small these days, and if someone is carrying one mounted on a beltbuckle, or in some other location not commonly associated with cameras…This suggests that if Comfort approaches you for an 'innocent conversation' under any circumstances whatsoever, it's probably best to assume that he's recording it and will later edit the video with malice aforethought.

Also, Comfort is perfectly capable of editing the bejeezus out of any footage he has custody of. So it may well be that lots of people asked him "oh, yeah? what's a 'kind', then?", and all of those questions ended up on the cutting room floor. Or in the bit-bucket, as seems more likely in these days of all-digital editing.

After the Dawkins fiasco in "from a frog to a prince" surely the likes of P.Z. Myers should have had more sense ?

Did no one think of asking Comfort to actually define a "KIND"

Given the quality of the camera-work in Comfort's recent cinematic magnum doofus, it's not clear that Comfort's victims were actually aware that the Bananaman was filming them. Recall that video cameras can be real small these days, and if someone is carrying one mounted on a beltbuckle, or in some other location not commonly associated with cameras…This suggests that if Comfort approaches you for an 'innocent conversation' under any circumstances whatsoever, it's probably best to assume that he's recording it and will later edit the video with malice aforethought.

Also, Comfort is perfectly capable of editing the bejeezus out of any footage he has custody of. So it may well be that lots of people asked him "oh, yeah? what's a 'kind', then?", and all of those questions ended up on the cutting room floor. Or in the bit-bucket, as seems more likely in these days of all-digital editing.

That may be illegal depending on where he filmed them... if he did not tell people he was filming.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Given the quality of the camera-work in Comfort's recent cinematic magnum doofus, it's not clear that Comfort's victims were actually aware that the Bananaman was filming them. Recall that video cameras can be real small these days…

That may be illegal depending on where he filmed them... if he did not tell people he was filming.

I am aware that many jurisdictions have laws regarding what degree of consent is needed, if any, before one can record another person. Do you think the Bananaman is aware of such laws, or that the Bananaman cares whether he might be violating such laws in the process of committing this sort of 'service' to his Lord?

Given the quality of the camera-work in Comfort's recent cinematic magnum doofus, it's not clear that Comfort's victims were actually aware that the Bananaman was filming them. Recall that video cameras can be real small these days…

That may be illegal depending on where he filmed them... if he did not tell people he was filming.

I am aware that many jurisdictions have laws regarding what degree of consent is needed, if any, before one can record another person. Do you think the Bananaman is aware of such laws, or that the Bananaman cares whether he might be violating such laws in the process of committing this sort of 'service' to his Lord?

He's probably aware, but doesn't care.

Laws are for people who aren't burdened with glorious purpose.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

My understanding is that the professors gave evidence, but none of it was 'directly observable' in a human lifetime or something like that, so Comfort is free to ignore it with the "you weren't there" argument.

I was one of those scientists. NO, I did not disagree with Dawkins about evolution or the evidence for evolution; NO, nothing I said provided any support to creationist claims; NO, there is not a lack of evidence for evolution.

What actually happened is that I briefly discussed the evidence for evolution — genetics and molecular biology of fish, transitional fossils, known phylogenies relating extant groups, and experimental work done on bacterial evolution in the lab, and Ray Comfort simply denied it all — the bacteria were still bacteria, the fish were still fish. I suspect the other scientists did likewise: we provided the evidence, Ray Comfort simply closed his eyes and denied it all.

"Except not every animal has males or females. Which Genesis neglects to mention. Why is that, Ray?"Cory KentDo you really think slugs and snails are "animals." They are not. They are what are termed “invertebrates,” which means they lack a backbone. They belong to a large and highly diverse group of invertebrates known as the Phylum Mollusca. You had better read Genesis again.

My understanding is that the professors gave evidence, but none of it was 'directly observable' in a human lifetime or something like that, so Comfort is free to ignore it with the "you weren't there" argument.

I was one of those scientists. NO, I did not disagree with Dawkins about evolution or the evidence for evolution; NO, nothing I said provided any support to creationist claims; NO, there is not a lack of evidence for evolution.

What actually happened is that I briefly discussed the evidence for evolution — genetics and molecular biology of fish, transitional fossils, known phylogenies relating extant groups, and experimental work done on bacterial evolution in the lab, and Ray Comfort simply denied it all — the bacteria were still bacteria, the fish were still fish. I suspect the other scientists did likewise: we provided the evidence, Ray Comfort simply closed his eyes and denied it all.

"Except not every animal has males or females. Which Genesis neglects to mention. Why is that, Ray?"Cory KentDo you really think slugs and snails are "animals." They are not. They are what are termed “invertebrates,” which means they lack a backbone. They belong to a large and highly diverse group of invertebrates known as the Phylum Mollusca. You had better read Genesis again.

Oh yeah, that's the stuff. Best pack up the Ebola and the matches boys and girls, we're finished.

--------------"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr